US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

It does bring up a question: Did Romney move to the right to get the candidacy and then moved to his "true" position, or has he moved to the center to get elected? With McCain we did see a record of centralist positions, but with Romney, I don't quit see it.

He's the type to say "whatever" in order to achieve that goal of becoming President. His history has said everything on every position, even on the social issues.

American kids are getting their chance to pick the country's next president, but this year they will have to do it without putting their questions directly to Republican contender Mitt Romney.
Award-winning "Nick News" host and producer Linda Ellerbee said on Monday that President Barack Obama sat down to answer questions from young viewers on the election, but Romney's aides turned down an invitation for him to appear personally on the show's long-running "Kids Pick the President" special.
"By answering kids' questions directly, candidates show respect for kids," Ellerbee said in a statement. "We are disappointed that Mitt Romney wouldn't take the time to answer the questions, but are thrilled that President Obama participated in the special."

He's just preaching to the choir basically. A lot of GOP supporters tend to be ignorant of how foreign policy really works and do think it would be fine if the US basically nuked Iran out of existence.

They should play more Civ 4 then, everyone hated me when I nuked the Mid-East.

But seriously, the administration has already so many non-traditional forms of attacks in order to slow down Iran. :/

As for Mittens...yeah he just says whatver to win. Although I suspect what he truly believes in had already been revealed that 47% video and Paul Ryan VP pick. :|

So if he wins, they might just be old enough to storm his White House.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Yeah, but first they have to go through that apathetic Teenage/Young adult phase.

That can be destructive. See Libya for details, many fighters are in their 20s.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

So apparently Romney and Obama are about dead even. Amazing that after all of the crap that Romney's pulled including the 47% thing, the flip flopping and just making no real commitment to a platform that he's probably going to win at this rate if he can pull somewhat even and the Republicans get their voter restriction laws in place. This is the leader America wants apparently, someone that has freely admitted he doesn't care at all about almost half of the country, who is completely out of touch with the middle class and who would gladly sell the country down the river if it meant adding a couple extra million dollars to his bases pockets. Truly and utterly astounding, America is so done after this election.

While I'm still worried about the country, given how many blind GOP supporters there are, I don't put any stock in polls.

Well I forgot something extremely important that actually kind of changes the situation. I was looking at the popular vote breakup, not the Electoral College breakdown, which still favors Obama quite a bit, but man why is this even remotely close? Yes I know it's because of the bloc voting by state thing, but why do people still do this?

I bet you're one of those who thought this election was Game Over when the liberal media milked The Dinner Video with a meme that came with it... to death NEWSFLASH: That meme has now worn off just like (imo) the memorable one 0bama generated ~3 months ago.

btw that Huffpo scoreboard expectation(s) was waay over-inflated and is now returning to real world levels

.......

anyways... I mentioned this months ago, and it's now reverberating to one of pro-0bama channels.

Chris Todd's (NBC) latest damning assestment should have you d-crats in frantic at this stage!

Well, it’s simply an enthusiasm gap. And we’re seeing it across the board. Look at here in this first one. 79% of Republicans call themselves extremely interested in this election. On a scale of one to ten, that means they said they’re a nine or a ten on interest in the election. 73% of Democrats.

Look at four years ago. It was a 13 point gap in favor of the Democrats. Let me go through some various voting groups. This is an important voting group. Seniors are an important voting group to Mitt Romney now. He leads them by about 10 points in our NBC Wall Street Journal poll. Look at this in engagement in the election. Four years ago was 81%, pretty higher. Even higher this time at 87%. And Romney’s doing better among seniors than McCain did.

Let me go to an important voting group for the president, young voters. Look at this engagement level: 52% now they call themselves, voters 18 to 34, call themselves extremely interested in this election. Four years ago it was 72%. That 20 gap. The president wins young voters by huge margins. He’s winning them by some 20-plus points. But if you don’t have this kind of enthusiasm, they’re not going to show up to the polls.

And then let me give you this last one here, because this is, I think, the most important one. And that’s Hispanics. The President’s winning Hispanics by 50 points. He hit the 70% mark. However, look at this in terms of interest in the election. 59% now, it was 77%. What does that mean? President got 65%, I believe, of Hispanics four years ago.

So even though he’s going to get more Hispanics, if less of them turn out, it’s a net zero. And yet, you look at Republican enthusiasm, up, senior enthusiasm, up. It’s a huge problem. And by the way, all of this, pre-debate.

I bet you're one of those who thought this election was Game Over when the liberal media milked The Dinner Video with a meme that came with it... to death NEWSFLASH: That meme has now worn off just like (imo) the memorable one 0bama generated ~3 months ago.

btw that Huffpo scoreboard expectation(s) was waay over-inflated and is now returning to real world levels

.......

anyways... I mentioned this months ago, and it's now reverberating to one of pro-0bama channels.

Chris Todd's (NBC) latest damning assestment should have you d-crats in frantic at this stage!

Well, it’s simply an enthusiasm gap. And we’re seeing it across the board. Look at here in this first one. 79% of Republicans call themselves extremely interested in this election. On a scale of one to ten, that means they said they’re a nine or a ten on interest in the election. 73% of Democrats.

Look at four years ago. It was a 13 point gap in favor of the Democrats. Let me go through some various voting groups. This is an important voting group. Seniors are an important voting group to Mitt Romney now. He leads them by about 10 points in our NBC Wall Street Journal poll. Look at this in engagement in the election. Four years ago was 81%, pretty higher. Even higher this time at 87%. And Romney’s doing better among seniors than McCain did.

Let me go to an important voting group for the president, young voters. Look at this engagement level: 52% now they call themselves, voters 18 to 34, call themselves extremely interested in this election. Four years ago it was 72%. That 20 gap. The president wins young voters by huge margins. He’s winning them by some 20-plus points. But if you don’t have this kind of enthusiasm, they’re not going to show up to the polls.

And then let me give you this last one here, because this is, I think, the most important one. And that’s Hispanics. The President’s winning Hispanics by 50 points. He hit the 70% mark. However, look at this in terms of interest in the election. 59% now, it was 77%. What does that mean? President got 65%, I believe, of Hispanics four years ago.

So even though he’s going to get more Hispanics, if less of them turn out, it’s a net zero. And yet, you look at Republican enthusiasm, up, senior enthusiasm, up. It’s a huge problem. And by the way, all of this, pre-debate.

Whenever I see people complaining about the fall of American democracy or the coming of fascism, I have this urge to kick that person to the ground. Countries have lived through worse things and still maintained democracy, and that is because of the will of the people to stand up for what they believe in. If people are not going to have that kind of will when facing the lesser problems of today, I have to say those people deserve the fall of democracy if it ever comes to that.

He's just preaching to the choir basically. A lot of GOP supporters tend to be ignorant of how foreign policy really works and do think it would be fine if the US basically nuked Iran out of existence.

It's worse than that. It's more about Christian Zionism, and its derivatives. Look at conservative (and some democratic) foreign policy over the last few decades and you can see how it is being played out in politics.

It is like this because half the country doesn't think the same as the other half. They might not like some of the things the Republicans are doing, but they like other things they do verse what the Democrats are doing.

A lot seems to be on social issues rather than the actual make it or break it stuff in the economy and international relations. The Conservatives are worried that the country is becoming socially corrupt by the liberals. They don't like a lot of the social programs because they believe they promote sloth in the population. They read about generational welfare, welfare for illegal immigrants (that they believe do not pay into the system at all), and other programs that seem to encourage one to not contribite to society in any meaningful way. These that have conservative morals object to changes in the moral fiber of the country. This includes homosexuality. Some have lightened up on race and interracial couples over the last few decades. Some have lightened up on women's rights.

And while on this site they is a lot of "how can people be so ignorate" type discussions, I would point out that the converatives think the same about their liberal cousins. They can't see way women would vote for the Democrats, thinking any that do must either be stupid, just voting the party line, or voting in reaction to something that happened a long time ago to make them sour (an analogy would be a Ford owner that will only buy Fords and detest Chevy's for some reason even that has long since been forgotthen. Or someone who will not drink Coke because of bad PR from years ago (when Coke was suing Mom and Pop stores for using their trademarked name "Coke" as a generic when they served RC or Pepsi), but drinks Pepsi and RC because of better PR).

For someone like me who tends to be in the middle, I hear arguments from both sides blaming each other for the same things. Or what might seem bad from one point of view looks good from another. It depends on either what one values, or what part of it one is looking at.

Take the voting ID thing. The against is that is seems like a poll tax. The for is that everyone is suppose to have an ID already (for checks or if a police officer asks, you need to provide one). If everyone is suppose to have ID, there shouldn't be an issue of showing it to vote. But in some states, ID costs money. Other states it is free. Some states require you to have ID. Other might not. (not sure on the state laws of all 50 states). It comes to point of view.

There are other things that I've forgotten about as I don't always remember all the family debates.

Take the voting ID thing. The against is that is seems like a poll tax. The for is that everyone is suppose to have an ID already (for checks or if a police officer asks, you need to provide one). If everyone is suppose to have ID, there shouldn't be an issue of showing it to vote. But in some states, ID costs money. Other states it is free. Some states require you to have ID. Other might not. (not sure on the state laws of all 50 states). It comes to point of view.

I'd potentially be more in favor of an ID requirement if:

1) Didn't cost money
2) GOP didn't try to institute it mere weeks/months before the election. Seriously, if you want IDs to be required, do it after the election and give people a chance to get it before the next election. Oh, but I guess that would go against the point of preventing voters they don't want from voting.